What’s Wrong with the World

These men valorously and quite directly gave their lives for no other objective purpose than to preserve the honor, the integrity, the basic goodness of America.

A minor point of style with respect to your excellent post: It's SEAL, not Seal.

Thank you Cyrus, and good point. (Also I changed Seal to SEAL).

These men valorously and quite directly gave their lives for no other objective purpose than to preserve the honor, the integrity, the basic goodness of America.

"They protected me like a child. They treated me like I was their eldest son." [Luttrell on the villagers of Sabray]

In the senselessness of war, only honor makes sense. Great post. Thanks.

16 men died due to poor judgment and the failure of leadership which was then spun to heroic sacrifice..

This is indicative of the inability to judge and understand the enemy we face and also largely a society that has a totally different take on what is honorable..

Now any 4 man seal team should have been equipped with zip ties that would enable them to secure these unarmed "civilians" and then precede with the mission without killing them or sacrificing 4 times as many Americans and or allies..

That's leadership and how you win wars..

An bring your men home in the vertical and not horizontal..

Honor..please..

Now any 4 man seal team should have been equipped with zip ties ...

Well, I don't know this for a fact by any means, but in an email discussion of that possibility it was pointed out that tying them up in that remote region would have been tantamount to killing them. In any event it is far from clear that that was a realistic option or that it wouldn't have itself been a violation of their rules of engagement.

Pragmatists may see the invocation of honor as spin in this case; but I rather suspect that pragmatism and honor are not close companions in general in the "hard cases". So much the worse for pragmatism.

The term and practice of "Honor" is not so black and white as it seems. While any American giving his life for his country is a hero, honor is a much deeper concept. For one to have honor he must have honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions. When Mr Luttrell joined the Navy he took the following oath:

I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. I swear (or affirm) that I am fully aware and fully understand the conditions under which I am enlisting.

In my view the decision to release those people not only compromised his mission but in the end traded the number of "unarmed civilians" (seems to me that they where not "civilians" but taliban informants) released for 20 American lives, and the absolute failure of the mission. That decision was made against the very interest Mr. Luttrell swore a oath to protect. In war time there will be "civilian" casualties and if this offends your since of "honor" then you should not be in command.

I dont really blame Mr. Luttrell because I'm sure he did what he thought was the right thing but the true test of any decision is whether he would do it again. Lets see 20 American lives VS a few "civilians"? I have every faith that the out come would not be the same.

That decision was made against the very interest Mr. Luttrell swore a oath to protect.

Interesting idea, that one honors an oath by disobeying orders and violating his rules of engagement.

...the true test of any decision is whether he would do it again.

Don't agree. Honor isn't whatever someone arbitrarily asserts it to be. A man who makes an honorable decision today can easily come to personally regret having made it tomorrow; but that doesn't make the decision any less honorable.

With all do respect, you are "Changing the rules of engagement" review your post, do you see any mention that he acted on his rules of engagement, indeed did you mention his rules of engagement at all?? I thought the whole point was that he did something remarkable, not that he merely followed his orders?? I really hope this is not one of those situations where you will change the rules and rely on information not given to "win" a argument.

I can be swayed by reasonable argument but when you support a position based on changing information or maybe more appropriately additional information I am at a loss to respond intelligently. Having said that, I would like that you not consider this a attack because you seem clearly offended that I don't hold the same opinion you do based on the facts. In any case while I enjoy a lively discussion, I will not engage in any conduct unbefitting a gentleman.

By the way I was testing the decision not the honor behind the decision. And even if I where challenging the honor of the decision, if I understand you correctly you suppose that having full knowledge of what a decision means in terms of human life and events that it would be less honorable to kill the unarmed insurgents, and more honorable to allow those insurgents to take 20 American lives???? Such a position would be patently absurd, and I really hope it is not what you are suggesting.

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor bastard die for his." - George S. Patton.

If Patton is in command and if Lt. Murphy has survived, Patton would have court marshalled him and, likely, Lt. would have been shot for failing his mission and unforgivably loosing 19 men in the process.

Only under Jorge Bush, El Presidente, criminal failures like Tenant, Bremer and Lt. Murphy get the highest awards.

...do you see any mention that he acted on his rules of engagement, indeed did you mention his rules of engagement at all??

Yes. Read the linked article. And I did mention them myself when I wrote "Their natural sense of honor supported by the legislated morality embodied in their formal rules of engagement...".

How young would the goatherds have to be, Keith, before you stopped considering them "unarmed insurgents"? Does that make a difference?

For Keith to essentially "call out" Petty Officer Luttrell, even citing the man's oath against him in a tendentious way; and for mik_infidelos to compare a man who gave his life for his fellows in battle, to a consummate bureaucrat like Tenet -- these, gentleman, are perfectly unacceptable attitudes to take, with respect toward American fighting men, on this website.

The implications of this statement do not amount to gentle suggestions.

Lt. Murphy wasn't awarded the CMOH for letting the herders go, but for walking to almost certain death in an effort to summon help for his pinned-down men. Brave, yes, but I don't feel competent to say whether it was MOH-worthy, either. Not everyone in a position to know better thinks so: Tactical Forums
(Read "Frogman's" posts).

seems to me that they where not "civilians" but taliban informants

That only became clear in hindsight. You aren't allowed to kill civilians just because you suspect that they are informants, even if your suspicion later turns out to have been correct.

In fact, I don't think you're allowed to kill civilians even if you *know* they are going to notify the enemy. Imagine if Col. Mosby, CSA, instead of simply raiding in Union-occupied Northern Virginia, had carried out a commando raid into Maryland or Pennsylvania, and while behind Union lines had accidentally encountered some civilians loyal to the Union, who could be expected, if they were released, to run to the authorities and spread the alarm, probably leading to the death or capture of the raiders and almost certainly leading to the failure of their mission. Does anyone doubt that, if Col. Mosby had ordered those civilians to be killed, that we would even today be denouncing the barbarity of his action, the way we denounce the barbarity of Quantrill's raid on Lawrence, Kansas?

"to compare a man who gave his life for his fellows in battle, to a consummate bureaucrat like Tenet"

I have no doubt that Lt. is much better man than Tenet, in fact he was very likely a much better man than me.

It does not change the fact that in any other war before Vietnam he would have been court marshalled and could have been executed.

As a former military man myself I don't saintify our military men, they are human with variety of bravery and abilities.

The man is dead, Infidelos. Does the Navy make a habit out of court-marshaling dead men?

"The man is dead, Infidelos."

I said IF Lt. would have survived, he would have been court-marshalled in any war prior to Vietnam.

As it is, only in exquisitely PC Jorge Bush admin, Lt could have received NMH for his tragic misjudgement.

...for his tragic misjudgement.

Which misjudgement specifically?

Well, the back-and-forth on the human implications of the judgment of Lt. Murphy and his men has been interesting, but I like to think that those who died were welcomed into the heavenly kingdom to the sound of angelic and saintly applause and the divine judgment of "Well done, good and faithful servants."

I also shudder to imagine what would have happened in the heavenly kingdom to the American soldiers should Lt. Murphy and his men unjustly killed (i.e., murdered) the unarmed civilians, failed their mission, and ended up dead anyway.

I agree Mia. Furthermore, I see no error in judgement here, at least given the facts expressed in the linked article. (Maybe they had time to abort the mission and didn't, but the article doesn't give that impression).

What mik_infidelos seems to be suggesting - and as usual, my preference when people suggest things is that they state them unambiguously - is that Lt. Murphy should have (dishonorably, under an amoral utilitarian calculus) disobeyed the rules of engagement and murdered the civilians, and indeed that in previous times he would have been punished for failing to disobey the rules of engagement.

There are any number of interesting ideas wrapped up in this beyond the matter of honor, honor for which as an objective matter these men died. One of the most interesting ones is that the kind of utilitarian realpolitik "conservatism" mik_infidelos seems to be arguing in favor of sees honor, and especially honor that men are willing to die for, as a liberal - in a bad sense - value.

Color me skeptical that any such "conservatism" warrants the name. A conservatism without honor, without the valor of fighting men willing to die battling evil and willing to die rather than do evil, is nothing at all. Such a "conservatism" is despicable, beneath even my own enemy the modern secular liberalism that this "conservatism" in theory, in its battalions of men without chests, sets itself against.

If that is "conservatism" then a pox on it.

"my preference when people suggest things is that they state them unambiguously".

When in service, I want my men to execute mission and come back alive and in good health.

As a civilian I may or may not agree with a mission, and in case of Iraq I don't even know what the mission Jorge assigned to out troops. But I want our men to come back alive, agree with the mission or not.

I'm with General Patton, I want other bastard to die for his country or cause, honorably or not.

I don't believe that even in Jorge Bush neutered PC Army rules of engagement don't allow for troop protection.

Lt Murphy has failed to protect his men by not neutralizing possible enemies. Given short time frame and likely language problems, Lt Murphy very likely had no basis to estimate risk due to release of his prisoners. Lt Murphy gambled with the lives of his men and lost.

Every situation is unique, but given terrain it is likely that he could have tied and gagged his prisoners and hided them in a place where they could have been found in 24 hours.

Lt. Murphy has failed his mission and has caused necessary death of 19 of the best warriors we have.

In my service I lost one man due to a tragic unforeseen event. It is very hard. I don't know if I could have gone on if, like Lt. Murphy, I have lost bunch of men due to my mistake and survived myself.

"honor for which as an objective matter these men died."

These men died fighting for their country and as result of misjudgement of their commander.

I don't want them to die because of your definition of honor concocted in a warm office in front of a computer screen.

In fact the only reason you celebrate them is because they are dead and gave you an opportunity to profess your moral superiority and great humanity.

I would rather celebrate and give Lt Murphy a medal and promotion had he returned completing his mission with all his men alive and intact.

It amazes me that there are people outside of crazy traitorous left who, it seems, don't particularly mind losing 19 best men, as long as they fit your rules of honor and engagement.

Perhaps I'm being unrealistic here. Aren't you the people who would not shoot down a passenger jet with nuke on board heading toward NYC?

If so, if Lawrence Auster, a brilliant thinker and writer, could not set you right, I, a poor former ESL student, have no chance.

So, celebrate your goodness and moral superiority, but please, stay as far as possible from any involvement in our military except charities.

"I also shudder to imagine what would have happened in the heavenly kingdom to the American soldiers should Lt. Murphy and his men unjustly killed (i.e., murdered) the unarmed civilians, failed their mission, and ended up dead anyway."

What if they netralized their prisoners, executed their mission well and returned alive and well?

Do you prefer 19 of our best warriors dead so that a few Jihadis could go on trying to kill us?

What if one soldier has died?
What would have happened in the heavenly kingdom to him?
What if the fallen warrior was Jew or Agnostic?

A couple of things:

First, Lt. Murphy did not survive. He is receiving the medal posthumously for his bravery specifically in how he summoned help for his unit, which resulted in his death. The details are here. You may be confusing him with Luttrel, who did survive.

Second, I'm glad you aren't advocating that Murphy should have violated his rules of engagement and murdered the civilians. I don't know if tying them up was a viable option (either as a practical matter or as being in accordance with the rules of engagement), but as I mentioned above in email discussions it was suggested that tying them up was tantamount to murdering them. Still, this is the area where from my standpoint there may be a "he could have done something different/better" argument to be made. I simply don't have the facts to be able to come down with a definite judgement either way. Someone who knows the SEAL ROE in Afghanistan in detail and the facts on the ground in the incident might be able to persuade me either way. My posting is based on the article to which the post links.

These men died fighting for their country and as result of misjudgement of their commander.

Again, you haven't demonstrated that there was any misjudgement.

Aren't you the people who would not shoot down a passenger jet with nuke on board heading toward NYC?

That is a misstatement of the position. It was discussed more recently at VFR here. (Also, there is no corporate position on the matter here at W4. It is my position though that some means of bringing down the airliner may be morally acceptable and that other means definitely are not morally acceptable. In general, the morality of a stated objective - "bring down the airliner" - cannot be evaluated in itself. One must always evaluate the specific proposed means).

I respect pacifists as individuals and reject pacifism as a suicidal ideology.
Pacifist made an individual choice, a brave and/or stupid it may be, and does not impose it on others.

American Left says they care about our troops and want them to come home. Some of the left are sincere in this sentiment.

And then we have position by the poster. He supports sending our boys into fight, he does not mind INSANE Rules of Engagement, he wants our best warriors to have Girl Scout Rules of Engagement.

So that he can seat in a nice warm chair and celebrate the honor with which our boys go down being slaughtered by our enemies and feel morally superiour.

What kind of morality is that?

You would be a bit more convincing if, knowing how insane Rules of Engagement are, went to fight yourself, or have sent your kids.

I have enormous, and newly found, respect for pols who, knowing how bad RoE are, sent their kids to Iraq. Rep Dunkin Hunter and Sen Biden are two. There could be more.

Try to visit Walter Reed. Try to find pictures and talk to wounded solidiers. Look at burned and for-life disfigured boys, teenagers really.
Try to meet 19 year old boys with 2 or more limbs lost.

And then, perhaps, you will re-evealute your high mindedness and moral superiority.

I respect pacifists as individuals and reject pacifism as a suicidal ideology.

That is interesting, but irrelevant, as I am not a pacifist.

You would be a bit more convincing if, knowing how insane Rules of Engagement are, went to fight yourself, or have sent your kids.

You don't know anything about me, or about the prices I've paid in my life for sticking to what I believe to be the truth.

And then, perhaps, you will re-evealute your high mindedness and moral superiority.

It is curious that when I honor these men you snottily dismiss it as "moral superiority".

"It is curious that when I honor these men you snottily dismiss it as "moral superiority"."

You honor them in their death while demanding that they fight with both their hands behind their back.